I didn't express myself very clearly, but please don't link me to this sort of offensive rubbish.

No one linked it to you personally, however, most of the congregants seemed to think it was a good idea. Its rather sad and besides the point. The Anglican Communion will give the sacrament to anyone whether they believe in sacraments or not or in the resurrection etc. If you know of any instance of an orthodox priest doing something inappropriate please let his bishop know...corrective action up to and perhaps including defrockment will occur. Our Church takes these things very seriously.Edited for moratorium violation - mike.

I didn't express myself very clearly, but please don't link me to this sort of offensive rubbish.

The sad thing is, Liz, this type of incident is almost symbolic of what has become of the modern Anglican Church in North America. Believe me, I have discussed this situation (which occured at a parish not far from where I live) with many of my Anglican and former Anglican friends, and this was their assessment of the situation. BTW, increasing numbers of Anglicans are becoming Orthodox over here due to this very modernistic mentality.

I didn't express myself very clearly, but please don't link me to this sort of offensive rubbish.

No one linked it to you personally, however, most of the congregants seemed to think it was a good idea. Its rather sad and besides the point. The Anglican Communion will give the sacrament to anyone whether they believe in sacraments or not or in the resurrection etc. If you know of any instance of an orthodox priest doing something inappropriate please let his bishop know...corrective action up to and perhaps including defrockment will occur. Our Church takes these things very seriously.

The Anglican Communion will invite anyone who is a communicant member of his or her own Church, to receive the Eucharist. Out of curiosity: if I went into an Orthodox church in a strange town, participated in the service properly, and went to receive the Eucharist, would the priest refuse it and demand to see my certificate of Orthodox baptism?

I think the church where communion was offered to a dog (if indeed this is a true story, which I'm not in a position to judge) have quite clearly proved they are not Christian. If someone called themselves an Orthodox priest and went around doing the same, you'd surely assume he was mad and you wouldn't judge the rest of the Church by his actions.

I didn't express myself very clearly, but please don't link me to this sort of offensive rubbish.

The sad thing is, Liz, this type of incident is almost symbolic of what has become of the modern Anglican Church in North America. Believe me, I have discussed this situation (which occured at a parish not far from where I live) with many of my Anglican and former Anglican friends, and this was their assessment of the situation. BTW, increasing numbers of Anglicans are becoming Orthodox over here due to this very modernistic mentality.

That is terribly sad, but thanks for explaining it, Rosehip. I wouldn't call this 'modernistic' - I'd have a stronger term for it!

I didn't express myself very clearly, but please don't link me to this sort of offensive rubbish.

No one linked it to you personally, however, most of the congregants seemed to think it was a good idea. Its rather sad and besides the point. The Anglican Communion will give the sacrament to anyone whether they believe in sacraments or not or in the resurrection etc. If you know of any instance of an orthodox priest doing something inappropriate please let his bishop know...corrective action up to and perhaps including defrockment will occur. Our Church takes these things very seriously.

The Anglican Communion will invite anyone who is a communicant member of his or her own Church, to receive the Eucharist. Out of curiosity: if I went into an Orthodox church in a strange town, participated in the service properly, and went to receive the Eucharist, would the priest refuse it and demand to see my certificate of Orthodox baptism?

I think the church where communion was offered to a dog (if indeed this is a true story, which I'm not in a position to judge) have quite clearly proved they are not Christian. If someone called themselves an Orthodox priest and went around doing the same, you'd surely assume he was mad and you wouldn't judge the rest of the Church by his actions.

I cannot say about the CofE but my experience in North America is that they will allow anyone to receive whether Anglican or not.If you went to an Orthodox Church the priest would not give you communion unless he knew you were Orthodox. It is suggested that you contact the priest to let him know that you will be visiting this way he is not surprised by you coming up to the chalice. If however, if you go up and he doesn't know you he will ask if you are Orthodox and if you are properly prepared to receive. If you are not he will allow you to kiss the chalice only.

I cannot say about the CofE but my experience in North America is that they will allow anyone to receive whether Anglican or not.If you went to an Orthodox Church the priest would not give you communion unless he knew you were Orthodox. It is suggested that you contact the priest to let him know that you will be visiting this way he is not surprised by you coming up to the chalice. If however, if you go up and he doesn't know you he will ask if you are Orthodox and if you are properly prepared to receive. If you are not he will allow you to kiss the chalice only.

Yes, the Anglican Church (as I said) will invite anyone who's a communicant member of their own Church to come and receive communion. The point is, they leave it up to you to be honest and act in good faith - it's not that they don't care, it's to do with being true to the spirit of Christ's sacrifice and his ministry, which didn't cling to the old Jewish laws restricting who could touch whom, and who could participate in what. That's the thinking as I've heard it explained, anyway.

You see, as far as I can tell, it'd be just as easy to lie to an Orthodox priest ('oh, yes, of course I'm Orthodox, I worship at St. Nicholas in Faraway Town, you must know it'), as it would be to lie to an Anglican one. The only difference is that, if you're in an Anglican Church, the understanding is that communicant members of all churches are automatically eligible to receive the Eucharist - that's not to do with not caring, but to do with our different attitudes towards community and the One True Church.

What I'm getting at is, there is a sincerity in the Anglican approach, which I think you are not seeing.

You know (and it's something I'm bad at), we'll get pulled up for wandering off the thread topic in a minute, so to bring it back:

I would think that, whatever difficulties we might expect in Orthodox/Anglican mixed parenting, it must be far harder for Orthodox/Catholic couples. Or would the Orthodox Church feel differently about this, as the Catholic Church shares some history with the Orthodox?

I cannot say about the CofE but my experience in North America is that they will allow anyone to receive whether Anglican or not.If you went to an Orthodox Church the priest would not give you communion unless he knew you were Orthodox. It is suggested that you contact the priest to let him know that you will be visiting this way he is not surprised by you coming up to the chalice. If however, if you go up and he doesn't know you he will ask if you are Orthodox and if you are properly prepared to receive. If you are not he will allow you to kiss the chalice only.

Yes, the Anglican Church (as I said) will invite anyone who's a communicant member of their own Church to come and receive communion. The point is, they leave it up to you to be honest and act in good faith - it's not that they don't care, it's to do with being true to the spirit of Christ's sacrifice and his ministry, which didn't cling to the old Jewish laws restricting who could touch whom, and who could participate in what. That's the thinking as I've heard it explained, anyway.

You see, as far as I can tell, it'd be just as easy to lie to an Orthodox priest ('oh, yes, of course I'm Orthodox, I worship at St. Nicholas in Faraway Town, you must know it'), as it would be to lie to an Anglican one. The only difference is that, if you're in an Anglican Church, the understanding is that communicant members of all churches are automatically eligible to receive the Eucharist - that's not to do with not caring, but to do with our different attitudes towards community and the One True Church.

What I'm getting at is, there is a sincerity in the Anglican approach, which I think you are not seeing.

A person could lie to the Orthdox Priest but then they will be liable before God both for lieing and recieving unworthily, the priest has done what he could to protect both the sacrament and them. If I am reading what you wrote correctly than you admit that the AC offers communion to anyone that is a member of their own church the only problem with that is that there are plenty of anglicans and other protestants that don't believe in sacraments or the resurrection. A qoute from an article I am currently reading about the AC by a former member: "How can a 'communion' call itself a 'communion', when its members can't even agree on what Communion is?"

I cannot say about the CofE but my experience in North America is that they will allow anyone to receive whether Anglican or not.If you went to an Orthodox Church the priest would not give you communion unless he knew you were Orthodox. It is suggested that you contact the priest to let him know that you will be visiting this way he is not surprised by you coming up to the chalice. If however, if you go up and he doesn't know you he will ask if you are Orthodox and if you are properly prepared to receive. If you are not he will allow you to kiss the chalice only.

Yes, the Anglican Church (as I said) will invite anyone who's a communicant member of their own Church to come and receive communion. The point is, they leave it up to you to be honest and act in good faith - it's not that they don't care, it's to do with being true to the spirit of Christ's sacrifice and his ministry, which didn't cling to the old Jewish laws restricting who could touch whom, and who could participate in what. That's the thinking as I've heard it explained, anyway.

You see, as far as I can tell, it'd be just as easy to lie to an Orthodox priest ('oh, yes, of course I'm Orthodox, I worship at St. Nicholas in Faraway Town, you must know it'), as it would be to lie to an Anglican one. The only difference is that, if you're in an Anglican Church, the understanding is that communicant members of all churches are automatically eligible to receive the Eucharist - that's not to do with not caring, but to do with our different attitudes towards community and the One True Church.

What I'm getting at is, there is a sincerity in the Anglican approach, which I think you are not seeing.

You could lie to the Orthdox Priest but then you will be liable before God both for lieing and recieving unworthily, the priest has done what he could to protect both the sacrament and you.

It would be exactly the same if you lied to an Anglican vicar, or deceived him by coming to receive communion either in an unfit state, or while not being a communicant member of your church.

Quote

If I am reading what you wrote correctly than you admit that the AC offers communion to anyone that is a member of their own church the only problem with that is that there are plenty of anglicans and other protestants that don't believe in sacraments or the resurrection.

No - I am sure there are no Anglicans who don't believe in the resurrection! It would go against the Anglican Creed, so quite impossible. It's true people differ in the way they understand the sacraments.

Quote

A qoute from an article I am currently reading about the AC by a former member: "How can a 'communion' call itself a 'communion', when its members can't even agree on what Communion is?"

Well, this is an interesting question, but I'm not wise enough to answer! I don't think anyone quite understands what communion is, except that it's a holy mystery.

It's a constant problem, in my opinion: the Orthodox Church is very good at defining what belief should be, and protecting that - but in the process, to me, it loses the spirit of inclusiveness at the root of Christianity. The Anglican Church is very good at being inclusive, but in doing so, all too often, risks appearing to condone heresy or misbelief.

"No - I am sure there are no Anglicans who don't believe in the resurrection! It would go against the Anglican Creed, so quite impossible. It's true people differ in the way they understand the sacraments."

I didn't link to it to hurt you or offend you. I linked to it because I inferred from your comment (erroneously?) that you had not heard it and that you thought the story was a malicious lie - when it was not. My apologies if I interpreted your comment in error.

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

"No - I am sure there are no Anglicans who don't believe in the resurrection! It would go against the Anglican Creed, so quite impossible. It's true people differ in the way they understand the sacraments."

The Anglican Creed states, 'I believe ... in Jesus Christ ... he suffered death, and was buried. On the third day, he rose again'. There is no way around that. If you are Anglican, you profess faith in the Resurrection. Anything else, and you are not Anglican, nor Christian.

I didn't link to it to hurt you or offend you. I linked to it because I inferred from your comment (erroneously?) that you had not heard it and that you thought the story was a malicious lie - when it was not. My apologies if I interpreted your comment in error.

No need to apologize Katherine - I just meant I didn't want to read about something so offensive - true, or untrue, it's really upsetting. In the same way that I think it'd be upsetting to you if you heard of someone who was claiming to be Orthodox, but actually doing things that are an affront to the faith.

"No - I am sure there are no Anglicans who don't believe in the resurrection! It would go against the Anglican Creed, so quite impossible. It's true people differ in the way they understand the sacraments."

The Anglican Creed states, 'I believe ... in Jesus Christ ... he suffered death, and was buried. On the third day, he rose again'. There is no way around that. If you are Anglican, you profess faith in the Resurrection. Anything else, and you are not Anglican, nor Christian.

And yet he was a bishop in the anglican communion for 21 years and openly taught these things the whole time with no action taken against him. So its fine to say that he wasn't really an Anglican but that is contrary to the facts.

"No - I am sure there are no Anglicans who don't believe in the resurrection! It would go against the Anglican Creed, so quite impossible. It's true people differ in the way they understand the sacraments."

The Anglican Creed states, 'I believe ... in Jesus Christ ... he suffered death, and was buried. On the third day, he rose again'. There is no way around that. If you are Anglican, you profess faith in the Resurrection. Anything else, and you are not Anglican, nor Christian.

And yet he was a bishop in the anglican communion for 21 years and openly taught these things the whole time with no action taken against him. So its fine to say that he wasn't really an Anglican but that is contrary to the facts.

Somehow, I think the 'facts' of the Creed are a little stronger than that!

Look, I don't know how this feels to you, but I feel as if we're getting further and further away from the thread title, which wasn't about the differences between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy, or about What Is Wrong With the Anglican Church.

I agree with you Liza. I think it would be perfectly appropriate for the priest to tell them that if they want to be members they have to be full members or if they want to join the other church then do so. None of this we're Orthodox this week and something different the next. It seems to me rather selfish on the parents part. That is why i would discourage any interfaith dating or marriage.

Are you seriously encouraging children to split their time equally between faiths...and saying this is a "good" thing?

This always upsets me.

In my Orthodox parish...I have those families who have married outside the Church - to other Christian denominations. They freely take there kids here and there...and their comments are the same..."it doesn't matter, Catholic and Orthodox is basically the same."

Huh?

Why did you bother to have your children baptized in the Orthodox Church only to take them regularly to R. Catholic or Byz Catholic parishes, where the kids actually partake of Communion...then on special holidays drag them back to the Orthodox Church.

What gives?

Pick one and stick to it.

Because if you truly think that it's okay to go from one to the other...than you really are neither....or you simply do not understand the Faith you propose to be.

I agree with you Liza. I think it would be perfectly appropriate for the priest to tell them that if they want to be members they have to be full members or if they want to join the other church then do so. None of this we're Orthodox this week and something different the next. It seems to me rather selfish on the parents part. That is why i would discourage any interfaith dating or marriage.

But plenty of mixed-faith couples wouldn't consider the idea of pretending to be 'Orthodox this week and something different the next'. As you can tell, my partner and I wouldn't. So why assume this is the default for mixed faith relationships?

Who is pretending? We have seen it with our own eyes. So are your children Orthodox? So they reject open communion as practised by your Church along with all the other variants that are contrary to Holy Orthodoxy?

I agree with you Liza. I think it would be perfectly appropriate for the priest to tell them that if they want to be members they have to be full members or if they want to join the other church then do so. None of this we're Orthodox this week and something different the next. It seems to me rather selfish on the parents part. That is why i would discourage any interfaith dating or marriage.

But plenty of mixed-faith couples wouldn't consider the idea of pretending to be 'Orthodox this week and something different the next'. As you can tell, my partner and I wouldn't. So why assume this is the default for mixed faith relationships?

Who is pretending? We have seen it with our own eyes. So are your children Orthodox? So they reject open communion as practised by your Church along with all the other variants that are contrary to Holy Orthodoxy?

I'm sorry, I think as this thread has split, I forgot to explain my situation. We don't have children yet; we've only been married a couple of weeks. But, of course, we have both seen things too, and they appear very different from what you've seen. Again, I would ask whether this might be to do with US/UK differences?

If I did have children, they could not 'reject' communion, as they would be children!

From our perspective, Holy Communion is an expression of a whole, full, and integral faith. If you take Communion at a church it means either that you believe what that church teaches or that you are a hypocrite.

Not exactly. It really varies. The international standard is to only admit baptized members of a Christian church (I don't know if maybe some Anglo-Catholics may have an even more conservative policy). The more liberal policies mostly show up in the US and Canada. Some admit self-identifying Christians regardless of whether they are baptized or not. The policy of the local diocese is to admit "all who seek Christ". More extremely, there are a number of individual congregations who simply welcome all.

From our perspective, Holy Communion is an expression of a whole, full, and integral faith. If you take Communion at a church it means either that you believe what that church teaches or that you are a hypocrite.

I have not heard this 'story' about communion being given to a dog, but it is disrespectful to associate something like that with any religion. Please don't do so.

Well, it was not in the Church of England. But he is right that there was a scandal caused by an Anglican Communion priest serving communion to a dog.

I have responded to this before, but I will say again: this is deeply offensive, and I like it no more than you.

You know what happens in Russia?

Edited for moratorium violation - mike.

« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 03:12:54 AM by mike »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

From our perspective, Holy Communion is an expression of a whole, full, and integral faith. If you take Communion at a church it means either that you believe what that church teaches or that you are a hypocrite.

If someone called themselves an Orthodox priest and went around doing the same, you'd surely assume he was mad and you wouldn't judge the rest of the Church by his actions.

No. But it certainly is not a confusing anomaly with respect to Anglicanism in North America; it's actually a rather logical and understandable trajectory of trends I see among Anglicans here. And it really started in England with the "all baptized Christians" policy.

it's to do with being true to the spirit of Christ's sacrifice and his ministry, which didn't cling to the old Jewish laws restricting who could touch whom, and who could participate in what.

That reasoning is not applicable. And if it was, then non-baptized people should be allowed to partake of communion. But that is not the case; the standard policy of the Anglican Communion is to allow baptized Christians, but not anyone who is not baptized.

No - I am sure there are no Anglicans who don't believe in the resurrection!

Well, you are welcome to deny them as legitimate Anglicans, but there certainly are plenty of Anglicans (particularly in North America) in good standing in a dioceses who deny the fleshly resurrection of Christ. I've even met a number of them and debated this topic with them.

The Anglican Creed states, 'I believe ... in Jesus Christ ... he suffered death, and was buried. On the third day, he rose again'. There is no way around that. If you are Anglican, you profess faith in the Resurrection. Anything else, and you are not Anglican, nor Christian.

I like your attitude. Unfortunately probably the majority of the people in the Anglican Communion recognize John Spong as a legitimate Anglican and even a legitimate Anglican Bishop at that.

From our perspective, Holy Communion is an expression of a whole, full, and integral faith. If you take Communion at a church it means either that you believe what that church teaches or that you are a hypocrite.

As for Anglicans taking Communion in an Orthodox church, I have experienced them not being allowed in most cases, but a few weeks ago I experienced the local Armenian bishop openly welcoming an Anglican to Communion.

There are two major issues that would be fairly insurmountable explaining to children. (George wouldn't have this issue since he doesn't believe that children should be taught about faith at all). The first would be the orthodox view of salvation, the second would be the orthodox view of hell. Those two issues will always be an issue, and a very confusing one at that. You can not teach that "mommy believes this and daddy believes that" without confusing the heck out of the child. Either raise the child orthodox, or raise the child Anglican. Maybe you can make it "work" for your children. But the children will grow up quite confused and may eventually become quite angry and leave all faith altogether. The issues of communion are great as well. You can not have your children partake at one church one week and another a different week. Kids don't stay little forever A child would not be allowed to partake of Anglican and Orthodox Eucharists concurrently. This would place the child in a position where they will have to choose between mom and dad at some point. They will have to decide that one or the other is correct. That is not a fair position to put a child in, it simply isn't healthy. You place the child into a situation of religious divorce whether you intend to or not.